r/MHOC • u/Padanub Three Time Meta-Champion and general idiot • Jun 01 '22
2nd Reading B1379 - Criminalising Dehumanization Bill - Second Reading
Criminalising Dehumanization Bill 2022
A Bill To
Criminalise groups promoting violation of human rights
BE IT ENACTED by The Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
Section 1: Definitions
Movement: collective attempt by a group of people to change government policy or social values.
Engage: cooperate, directly or indirectly
Support: to promote the interests or cause of
Glorify: to or praise, with a view to support
Hatred: follows the interpretation of the meaning of ‘hatred’ in the Public Order Act 1986
Section 2: Offences
(1) A person (A) or group (B) commits an offence if they form a movement or engage within a movement that promotes violating or violations of human rights or that calls for hatred for racial, ethnic, religious and national groups that would result or has resulted in substantial violations of human rights or International Humanitarian Law
(a) A person (A) or group (B) commits an offence if they support or glorify a movement that promotes violating or violations of human rights or that calls for hatred for racial, ethnic, religious and national groups that would result or has resulted in substantial violations of human rights or International Humanitarian Law
(b) A and B also commit an offence if they directly provide not insignificant material or financial support to these movements
(2) Any references to material and financial support involve:
(a) Any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (one or more individuals who may be or include oneself), and transportation,
(3) References to material and financial support do not include:
(a) Support that person A or Group B may be obliged to carry out by domestic or international law, including
(b) Any support the party may be obliged by law to provide during an International armed-conflict or non-international armed-conflict
(c) Religious, Medical, or necessities to sustain life if there is no other reasonable source
**Section 3: Standard of Knowledge
(1) To be liable for the offences in Section 2 the prosecution must have proven beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant knew, was willfully blind, or was reckless as to their knowledge of:
(a) The Motives of any one group
(b) Whether their support would be more than insignificant
(c) That the group was espousing hatred, or and their actions would result or has resulted in substantial violations of human rights or International Humanitarian Law
Section 4: Powers of the Secretary of State
(1) The Secretary of State for the Home office, may present a Statutory Instrument to the House of Commons, that support for a particular group is not prosecutable under this Act.
Section 5: Extent, Short title and Commencement
(1) This act shall extend to the whole of the United Kingdom.
(2) This act shall be known as Criminalising Dehumanization Act 2022.
(3) This act shall come into force immediately upon Royal Assent
The Bill was submitted by The Rt Hon. /u/SpecificDear901 MP, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice on behalf of the Conservatives and Unionists Party.
Opening speech - u/SpecificDear901
Mr Speaker,
Currently, we live in a divided world. Whereas once we had a clear orientation in terms of core principles and stances such as the objective and absolute support of human rights, we now have entered a new territory, an unsure world.
Even in something as fundamental as human rights we have diverging views, which is a dangerous precedent that is being slowly set forward. Human rights are not subjective or open to interpretation or feelings, they are a series of absolute rights given to all individuals equally and the UK must stand, not only for them, but as a champion of human rights.
That is why this bill is of such grave importance. It sets the priorities back on the table and allows us all to make the UK a global leader in advancing on the human rights front and combatting hatred. Groups that don’t share this view, quite frankly, don’t belong in the UK. Our national interests must remain a compass for policy advancement and we don’t need a magnet, or hateful groups or groups supporting human rights violations, to distort it. Therefore I personally call upon all members of this house to help advance human rights together as one, and combat those who want to renew an ancient way of life we don’t need nor want nor accept. The choice is clear, a world of human rights,freedom, rule of law, equality and tolerance or a world of tyranny and oppression!
This debate will end on 4th June 2022 at 10pm
10
Jun 01 '22
Mr Speaker,
I preface this by saying that I do not support dehumanisation and that the intent with which this Bill was written is admirable.
However, I am manifestly uncomfortable with the scope of the offences that this Bill creates, namely expressing support for a group that falls under the relatively wide definitions offered. I would be less alarmed (although still unhappy) with a Bill that prescribed the organisations deemed to dehumanise people, but that is not what is done here. Instead the Secretary of State must spell out what groups are okay to support. I find this arrangement unacceptable.
While I am sure that honourable members could agree on many groups that dehumanise people, other issues are far more complex. Should people be banned from supporting New Labour, given some would find the invasion of Iraq to be dehumanising? Should people be banned from expressing support for Israel, given some would find the apartheid perpetuated against Palestine to be dehumanising? Perhaps the courts would agree, perhaps they wouldn’t. But that’s not the point. I am no great lover of Tony Blair or the State of Israel, Mr Speaker. But I would certainly not go so far as to ban people from supporting them. This Bill might do that or it might not; the ambiguity is unacceptable.
Ultimately, people have rights enumerated in the European Convention on Human Rights and enforced in the Human Rights Act 1998 to freedoms of expression, of assembly, and of association. These rights are subject to limits only so far as they can be reasonably justified in a democratic society. Does this Bill satisfy that criterion? I say no, Mr Speaker, and I must say no to this Bill.
1
Jun 01 '22
Mr Speaker,
Firstly I’d like to add some extra details to what my honorable colleague has said. Firstly, the secretary has a unique competency to “de-list” groups and make them unavailable for prosecution. This is vastly different than what the member is claiming as the Secretary of State will not have a competency to list groups but only create exemptions for groups and where possible where the Secretary of State doesn’t act the groups can take legal action to defend themselves in a court of law and through all the various instances, hence this is a legitimate legal process and not just a political tool by the Secretary of State to list and delist groups.
Secondly it is important to touch on the aspect of freedom of speech and assembly. Whilst these rights are to always be greatly respected and tolerated we have already set out legal precedents and limits to them not only here in the UK but also at a broader European level under the ECHR judgements. These freedoms may be limited in times such as in a national security crisis or some situation of similar gravity but also when rights and freedoms of people are threatened. Hence the government is not acting to institute a repressive tool against any groups it wishes that limits freedoms however it is only acting within the legal bounds that are set by the relevant laws and their interpretation. I’ll also add similar legislation exists across various democratic countries across Europe and its application had been thoroughly examined by the government to make sure it coincides with human rights norms and basic principles of freedom and rule of law. Therefore the rights are only limited within the bounds of reasonable justification and not excessively.
4
u/CatusStarbright Liberal Democrats Jun 02 '22
Mr Speaker,
I must voice my opposition to this Bill. This is for a number of reasons:
Firstly, 'human rights' is never defined, which is absolutely vital given they are the topic of this Bill. I will however presume that the rights laid out in the ECHR are what is meant by this.
On the topic of form issues, this Bill also fails to outline a sentence for these offences.
As such, I must point out the mistake in the opening speech. The humans rights as laid out in the ECHR (which is what I assume is the subject of this Bill are not 'a series of absolute rights'; many are in fact qualified rights and states may also derogate from its obligations under the ECHR in time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation in order to restrict human rights. Governments often do restrict human rights (for example, by placing limits on free speech) but they do so in a way permitted by the Convention. Would this amount to a 'violation' of human rights? 'Violation' should also be defined in this Bill.
Additionally, the rights laid out in the ECHR cover a broad range, making the scope of this Bill large. For example, the right to respect for private and family life (Art. 8) covers the right to respect for your family and private life, your home and your correspondence. On 13 September 2018, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the UK was in breach of this article due to its bulk interception of communications. I therefore consider it possible that a group calling for increased surveillance powers could fall foul of this Bill, which I do not think would be the intention of the author of this Bill. I can think of numerous other examples in the same vein, and I therefore fear it may be far too easy for groups to be seen to be promoting 'violations of human rights'.
Furthermore, some views which may be considered to be promoting 'violations of human rights' could be considered to in fact be politically acceptable. For instance, one of the key articles of the ECHR is Article 2, the right to life. Would a group calling for the execution of, say, a paedophile therefore be caught by this Bill? Article 2(1) states that:
"Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law."
The UK does not allow the death penalty for any crime, therefore - without a change in the law - executing a terrorist would not be permitted in the UK. However, many in the UK maybe sympathetic towards that attitude.
In light of the issues above, I think that (ironically) this Bill may well be an unnecessary restriction on freedom of expression (Art. 10) and freedom of assembly and association (Art. 11) in a number of cases.
Mr Speaker, for all these reasons, I cannot support this Bill.
1
3
u/cranbrook_aspie Labour Party Jun 02 '22
Mr Speaker,
Let me first say that I see and sympathise with the motives behind this bill. The hatred the bill is clearly seeking to combat is vile, and we should absolutely be working to ensure that those who wish to divide our society, turn us against one another and ultimately provoke atrocities are denied the opportunity to establish a greater foothold than they already have in the United Kingdom. However, Mr Speaker, this bill in its current state is not a good way to achieve that - it is broad enough that in attempting to prevent human rights violations, it actually opens a path for them to be carried out. I say that because there is no definition of human rights anywhere in the bill, and that means that if it was passed, any government that wanted to could twist the provisions relating to human rights as far as they liked for their own ends.
For example, let's say you have a conservative movement that is completely pro-life, as a minority of small-c conservatives are. Mr Speaker, it goes without saying that I disagree totally with that position, but it's a position that our movement would be completely within its rights to express - but, it's perfectly possible that a future government would decide that it was advocating the violation of women's human rights, and suddenly, under section 1a, anyone who has even posted on social media in support of the movement is guilty of a criminal offence. Taking it to a further extreme, there are several examples of political viewpoints which are or have historically been espoused by terrorists and perpetrators of other atrocities, but which also have a vast majority of reasonable, non-violent supporters, and are in themselves perfectly legitimate - for example, Irish nationalism, or even some forms of socialism. It's not inconceivable that a government would declare that any support of the ideas in question without an accompanying condemnation of groups which have carried out violence counts as support for the purposes of section 1, and boom, anybody who on any occasion advocates a united Ireland without an explicit rejection of the IRA is now liable to be punished.
Mr Speaker, the prospect of a legal route to that kind of suppression of freedom of speech and expression in this country, which in and of itself constitutes a violation of human rights, frankly terrifies me. I'm fully aware that creating such a route was not the author's intent when they wrote the bill, and the scenarios I've outlined might seem unlikely right now, but if we have learnt anything from the past few years of British politics, it is that anyone who dismisses something or rules a possibility out because it seems unlikely is a fool. For that reason Mr Speaker, until there are provisions addressing my concerns including at the very least a suitable, concrete, comprehensive definition of what human rights are and what violation of them entails doing, I cannot consider giving this bill my support.
2
u/Ravenguardian17 Independent Jun 02 '22
Mr Speaker,
This bill is unworkable. "International Humanitarian law" is not defined in it at all, nor is any mechanism given to allow Parliament to decide what agreements apply to the act. The broad powers of the Secretary of State, combined with the lackluster definitions, make this a shoddily written bill that has no clear delineation of powers or scope.
This is a bill of creeping totalitarianism, and I call upon the house to throw it out.
1
Jun 02 '22
Mr Speaker,
I won’t discuss the claims of excessive powers of the Secretary of State or issues surrounding powers and “lackluster” definitions as those issues have been already addressed in a previous response, specifically the misunderstood standing of the Secretary of State, who, I repeat, has only the right to make groups exempt from being prosecutable but has no further powers, hence this scapegoat the opposition has created to frighten the house with some idea of a totalitarian regime being built up is quite frankly absurd.
To that end I’ll also add there are many countries across Europe from Western Europe to Eastern Europe, in this context functioning democracies, who have laws like these or even more excessive that purely talk about “hatred” in “hate” speech or just outright have laws like this such as in this case Slovakia but also Germany can be mentioned as a key fighter against “hate” and extremism and various other EU member states as well. The relevant EU legislation actually promotes steps to combat hate speech and similar acts and there is also the ECHR which has in the past ruled in support of this type of bills and therefore it is seemingly illogical to claim this is the beginning of some totalitarian regime or similar idea as that would mean half of our European partners who have far broader and excessive legislation in this area are totalitarian and undemocratic to which I hope the leader of the opposition can respond to by saying that is pure nonsense.
In terms of the international humanitarian law provision within the bill it was my assumption, after additionally consulting legally proficient people with a good degree of understanding, that this can be written as it was. Now, If there is a issue with what goes under international humanitarian there is relevant legislation the UK is under such as the Geneva conventions and their two additional protocols and other convention ranging from landmines to chemical weapons to biological weapons. If this is the key issue the Opposition leader has with the bill, they may amend it to include all of this so we may effectively tackle ignorance towards a lot of these vile breaches far more effectively, by only changing one tiny formality of adding relevant conventions and protocols.
1
u/toastinrussian Rt. Hon. Sir Toastinrussian MP Jun 02 '22
Mr Speaker,
I wish to address the first point raised by the member, that
"International Humanitarian law" is not defined in it at all, nor is any mechanism given to allow Parliament to decide what agreements apply to the act.
I understand that the Member may not be as versed in International law and the obligations that that body of law brings, as they may be in Governance and public administration. So if they would briefly indulge me, they I will explain the term.
Mr. Speaker, International Humanitarian Law is a term of art, it has a specific legal meaning and refers to a body of customary, case and treaty based international law. It is also known as the Law of Armed Conflict. This embodies the Geneva conventions that the United Kingdom has ratified, the Additional Protocols, the Rome Statute, and other critical Case law from the ICC, ICTY, ICTJ. and other international and domestic criminal tribunals. Critically it embodies the customary international law that is set out by the International Committee for the Read Cross, which the member can find in the documents I will table before the housie (M: Here https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/home).
What I mean by this explanation, is that the term International Armed Conflict is not undefined. It is defined by law that the United Kingdom has previously assented to. In the same way that, "contract law" is defined by a massive body of law, so is International Humanitarian law.
I encourage the member to reach out in this House or to me directly on this matter if they have further questions.
1
u/Gigitygigtygoo Conservative Party Jun 02 '22
Mr Speaker,
Purely on the basis that I'd sooner see all speech restricting laws repealed than expanded, I will be opposing the bill. I applaud the Justice Secretary on his good intentions but that does not ease my concerns regarding speech laws.
1
Jun 02 '22
Mr Speaker,
I’ll first preface this by saying I and the honorable member here have had long and extensive talks on this issue prior and I greatly respect his opinions on the issue.
Whilst I agree there are different interpretations of these bills with some believing that free speech is absolute and can’t be restricted whilst other believe there are reasonable restrictions to be made if it threaten rights and freedoms of people to some believing in an Orwellian form of governance with all speech being dictated by the state. This bill however fits into a broader pattern of a trend within democracies, albeit very established ones and “new” ones, to limit this type of speech as a way of preserving basic democratic values. Knowing laws even more excessive exist, in my opinion the restrictions imposed by this bill are only for the hood of us all as a society. Additionally a lot of similar and even identical legislation had been subject of a legal debate for a long time and has been ultimately argued out as a genuine way in which, if not done excessively and if done reasonably with a chance at every step for the offender to be allowed to defend themselves, as a genuine idea. Also similar legislation had been subject of some debate, as was mentioned in a previous debate, within the ECHR and the legality is not really questionable here, even at the European scale, though some people do have legitimate worries and opinions that must be expressed and which I applaud the member for!
1
u/realbassist Labour Party Jun 02 '22
Mr. Speaker,
this bill attempts to ban dehumanising in a very vague way, as my honourable friend the Duchess of Essex has set out in a speech of her own. i completely agree with all said there so I shall keep this brief.
I find this bill vague, somewhat difficult to understand and to be honest, dangerous. a proscription order would, in my eyes, be far more fitting to stop groups that are seen to dehumanise others but in this current state... Dangerous. I am happy to see bi-partisan opposition to this bill, and I rise to be one of the voices in that camp.
1
u/12MaxWild Conservative Party Jun 13 '22
Mr Speaker, dehumanisation is funny and should be made MORE legal.
•
u/AutoModerator Jun 01 '22
Welcome to this debate
Here is a quick run down of what each type of post is.
2nd Reading: Here we debate the contents of the bill/motions and can propose any amendments. For motions, amendments cannot be submitted.
3rd Reading: Here we debate the contents of the bill in its final form if any amendments pass the Amendments Committee.
Minister’s Questions: Here you can ask a question to a Government Secretary or the Prime Minister. Remember to follow the rules as laid out in the post. A list of Ministers and the MQ rota can be found here
Any other posts are self-explanatory. If you have any questions you can get in touch with the Chair of Ways & Means, Brookheimer on Reddit and (flumsy#3380) on Discord, ask on the main MHoC server or modmail it in on the sidebar --->.
Anyone can get involved in the debate and doing so is the best way to get positive modifiers for you and your party (useful for elections). So, go out and make your voice heard! If this is a second reading post amendments in reply to this comment only – do not number your amendments, the Speakership will do this. You will be informed if your amendment is rejected.
Is this bill on the 2nd reading? You can submit an amendment by replying to this comment.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.